> Here's a little klew x 4 from Rotating Bitch: this space isn't my space.
> It belongs to Doug Henwood. If you want to return the favor, where I
> once invaded your hole, do it at _my_ space. This ain't it.
*chuckle* Yet your hole is so dried up, Snit. What, less than two messages a day now? Besides, you wouldn't want to keep me all to yourself, would you? I didn't think we were ready for an exclusive relationship.
> We're sexually liberated lefties and we believe ass fucking is not only
> a Constitutional Right but a National Obligation.
Well, thanks for sharing. How's that sexual liberation thing going for you so far? I seem to recall an uptick in the VD rate, last I checked.
> 2. The list isn't a free carrier. Very few of us, if any, believe we
> need to waste our time and energy on people who despise our theories and
> politics, caricatures of which they've read in the likes of NewsMax, The
> National Journal Online, and every Libertarian Capitalist Guide to Fifth
> Columnists in the US of A.
Believe me, I've read more of it than is likely good for me, and will read more still. Let's say this is more an inquiry into the seamy underbelly of Snit-think with a secondary focus on axe-grinding than vice versa.
> There's nothing wrong with hating, you see. We hate right back and
> aren't interested in giving your theories anything but the same you give
> ours.
My theories entail "live and let live". Yours, taken to their logical conclusion, appear to entail "killing your enemies, taking their belongings and eating their corpses", summarized roughly and removing all euphemism. Rather than "hate", let us say that I am unconvinced of the long-term viability or desirability of that particular belief- system, particularly in light of the alternatives. Perhaps I have missed something, though.
I would scarcely expect you to give my theories any more credence or less scrutiny than I give yours, that would be unfair. And if there's one thing that I am, Snit, it is _scrupulously_ fair.
> Disabuse yourself of the Kumbya Left. In Lefty space, as opposed to
> Liberal Space, we don't hold hands and sing Kumbya with people who wish
> to remain deliberately ignorant of our point_s_ of view.
That would be "Kum-bA-Ya", minor quibble, if you're referring to the song.
What makes you think I'm ignorant of your point(s) of view? At the rate that I read - and I've read more than you might imagine - I believe I've a fairly good handle on your (collective) views. You appear to be allergic to any restatement of those views or consequences thereof that removes the pleasing swaddling of euphemism customarily surrounding them, laying their core bare to examination. Yet, why quibble? If I have misconstrued some factual aspect of your beliefs, then I would certainly hope you would be so kind as to correct me. I freely admit, I may be wrong with respect to the consequences of those beliefs. You appear to believe that those consequences squint towards Utopia, I disagree. Isn't that the act of hashing that out the very soul of "discourse"?
> We have work to do and you aren't on our list, not even for good and
> proper ass fucking.
I know: the life of a termite is always full, always boring.
You know, I note that for someone who claims a lack of unity and theoretical homogeneity on the part of the vanguard of the Left, you certainly like to use the word "we" a lot.
> If your Inner Submissive really needs to be worshipped like the Queen
> she is, then slip on the fish nets and fuckme pumps.
If your inner Lavrenti Beria really needs to suppress all dissent like the autocratic psychopath that he is, then slip on the Makarov and the riding crop.
If your inner Jerry Falwell really needs to establish a new dogmatic religious empire like the bigoted drama queen that he is, then slip on the thin coat of Vaseline and the wireless microphone.
If your inner Gaetan Dugas really needs to spread loathsome and incurable social diseases like the selfish and self-destructive malcontent that he is, then slip on the chaps and the cashmere sweater.
Isn't this fun?
> Which brings me to
>
> 3. I realize you think you were sprouted from the head of Zeus but your
> questions were laughable, your assumptions revealed how thoroughly
> ignorant you are of the discussions that animate the real left in this
> country.
Then educate me, O Snit. I present myself to you and yours freely, knut in hand, prepared for Education. Or were you just planning on firing up the death camps to convince the unconvinced, instead? If that's the case, at least be honest about it to everyone else, even if you can't be honest about it to yourself.
Besides, you wouldn't begrudge me my own little mailing-list research project, would you?
> Bitchlation Help: Search archives. We've probably written ten books
> about fascism, it's various definitions. So, when I use the term,
> Charles Brown knows what debates to which I refer, as does Chip, to whom
> I was speaking.
I've seen no books about fascism written in the archives; what I have seen is a number of screeds redefining "fascism" to mean things that bear no resemblance to the actual definition of the term ("semi-private ownership of capital, whose function is directed by the State"). The meaning of "fascism" in any given argument appears to be shorthand for "Things We Think Are Evil", it appears to serve the same purpose as a comma, or the word "fuck". Religious observance is "fascism", any word or action against sympathetic victims (justified or not) is "fascism", disagreeing with cherished shibboleths is "fascism". Your attempt to redefine these words de novo each time you use them does not contribute light to a discussion, it casts shadows.
> Unlike you, they participate in this discourse, which makes discussion
> flow smoothly so we can focus on the debtes that matter.
I'd venture to say that by providing a nucleus around which you may "discourse", I _am_ participating. Your mileage may vary, of course. Are you the lbo-talk spokeSnit?
And which debates "matter"? I'm curious, enlighten me. While discussions about the evils of freely-available content for privately- owned widescreen 5.1-Surround-Sound immersive dildonic portable digital pornographs is fun, I'm more than happy to engage in lively debate on other topics.
> Educating Capitalist Libertarian ass that came her to "return a favor"
> isn't one of them
Why not? Are you suggesting that there is no possible common ground? (I myself think common ground unlikely, though unlike you, I do not dismiss the prospect out of hand.) "If you're not with us, you're against us"? Is that what you're saying?
> Normally, I would have stayed out of it, but you can't even be bothered
> to work from an perceptibly educated position, where you reveal you are
> capable of speaking at a pre=school level of fluency in our language.
Whereas the clarity of your prose is celebrated in song and story, right? I've seen tweaking meth addicts and Alzheimer's patients better at stringing a sentence together, never mind a paragraph. (Unless you've just been slumming all this time, which I must say is a remarkably sloppy attitude to have.)
> Normally, I'd shut my rap, but since it's pretty easy to figure out the
> relationship between you and I -- there are DC-stuffers on this list,
> three last I counted and numerous LBOers subscribed to Pulp. Thus, I
> have decided to bother since these people are my friends. You are
> deliberately deceiving them. To remain silent makes me complicit in your
> FuckStick Games.
Deliberately deceiving them how? Subscribing to a mailing list with an agenda? My God, you're right. How evil is that, huh? I didn't even hide it, either, just jumped right in and started asking questions. The horror!
For the life of me, I don't know why you're complaining; why, you even have the home-team advantage and advance warning.
> Others here may want to spar with your quite capable, highly
> intelligent, and entertaining ass. I sure wish I had more time to
> rekindle the flame of our old passion. (metaphor for the literal minded)
Then perhaps they'll indulge me. Why, you wouldn't deprive your burgeoning rhetorical cadre of the opportunity to cut their teeth on l'il ol' me, would you, being widely voted the brandest-newest lbo-talk "chewtoy"?
Terrified that I'll corrupt some purity while I'm here, Snit?
> But, if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't do it on Henwood's list.
I don't know why not, I believe the preferred euphemism is "target-rich environment". Perhaps Mr. Henwood will make his wishes on this matter known. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that diversity is a necessary prerequisite for progress, yes? I would think that consensus would be awfully boring. Why, I may even be sympathetic to some of your (stated) aims, though not to your methods. ("Seize the State, kill our enemies, burn everything to the ground and PARTY PARTY PARTY 'til the famine comes!!!")
If it helps, I promise to stick to the 3-post limit. Why, I suspect I won't even use all of 'em every day, either.
--
(c) 2005 Unscathed Haze via Central Plexus <hasted at tent.heads>
I am Chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are Free. -Eris
Big Brother is watching you. Learn to become Invisible.
|-------- Your message must be this wide to ride the Internet. --------|